NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RALPH B. NEAL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.; 

U.S. BANK, N.A., Successor Trustee to 

Bank of America, NA Successor in Interest 

to La Salle Bank NA, as Trustee on Behalf of 

the Holders of WAMU Mortgage PassThrough Certificates Series 2007-OA6; 

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 21-15588 

D.C. No. 5:20-cv-07127-EJD 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 17, 2022**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

Ralph B. Neal appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 1 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 21-15588 

his diversity action alleging various claims related to his mortgage. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th 

Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Neal’s claims against the moving 

defendants on the basis of claim preclusion because Neal raised, or could have 

raised, his claims in his prior federal actions, which involved the same parties or 

their privies and resulted in final judgments on the merits. See id. (setting forth 

elements of federal claim preclusion); DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber, 352 P.3d 

378, 386 (Cal. 2015) (setting forth elements of claim preclusion under California 

law); see also Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 891 & n.4 (2008) (explaining that 

the preclusive effect of judgments in diversity cases is determined by the 

preclusion rules applied by the state in which the rendering court sits, and 

preclusive effect of judgments in federal-question cases is determined by federal 

claim preclusion rules); Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning 

Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1081 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining privity for purposes of 

federal claim preclusion); City of Martinez v. Texaco Trading & Transp. Inc., 353 

F.3d 758, 764 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining privity for purposes of claim preclusion 

under California law). 

The district court properly dismissed Neal’s claims against the defendants 
 3 21-15588 

who did not move to dismiss the complaint. See Silverton v. Dep’t of Treasury, 

644 F.2d 1341, 1345 (9th Cir. 1981) (“A District Court may properly on its own 

motion dismiss an action as to defendants who have not moved to dismiss where 

such defendants are in a position similar to that of moving defendants or where 

claims against such defendants are integrally related.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declaring Neal a vexatious 

litigant and imposing pre-filing restrictions because the district court gave Neal

notice and the opportunity to oppose the pre-filing order, created a record adequate 

for review, made substantive findings of frivolousness, and tailored the order 

narrowly to prevent the abusive conduct. See Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 

500 F.3d 1047, 1056-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review and 

factors a district court must consider before imposing a pre-filing restriction on a 

vexatious litigant).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Neal’s complaint 

without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. 

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth 

standard of review and explaining that a district court may dismiss without leave to 

amend when amendment would be futile).
 4 21-15588 

We reject as without merit Neal’s contention that the district court was 

biased. 

AFFIRMED.